Wasnt the robbery of the year. A VERY close fight that could have gone either way, but not a robbery. (I was rooting for Maquez though tbh)

Couldn't put it any better.

People need to learn the difference between a real robbery, such as Lara Williams, and a close fight. Neither Pacquiao or Marquez dominated the entire fight, they each won their share of rounds and at the end of the day the judges gave it to the defending champ.

And for the record this is coming from someone who doesn't care for Pacquiao at all.

because he said he needed to take a couple of weeks to think about it. if he wasn't hesitant to fight pac he would have immediately said, "yes i would like to fight pac next." when asked about it and not "i need to sit down with my family and decide.".

not to sound rude but it's not very hard to understand.

also the third fight was hardly a robbery. i thought it was close, but not a robbery.

JMM vs Pac 3 wasn't a robbery. Proof in that Pac is always heavy favourite in any rematch. What was a robbery was is when Bradley robbed Pac. In the subsequent rematch Pac was favourite even after being ko;ed

How is it that Pacquiao landed more strikes in the 3rd fight, and at a higher percentage than Marquez, than he did in the previous two yet this fight was considered a robbery?

I thought it was a close fight, and could have gone either way really. I leaned towards Pacquiao in this one.

I think what happened is that people got caught up in the 'underdog effect'. Where the underdog does a lot better than he's supposed to and therefore gets more credit than he deserves. Because prior to the fight many picked Pacquiao to knock him out. When that didn't happen and when Marquez fought back, that changed peoples minds.

Chisora vs Helenius, is in my opinion one of the biggest robberies of all time. It wasn't as high profile of a fight as Pacquiao-Marquez, but it was a far bigger robbery. Chisora won at LEAST 8 rounds in that fight. At the very least, you can't make any case for Helenius winning the fight.

How is it that Pacquiao landed more strikes in the 3rd fight, and at a higher percentage than Marquez, than he did in the previous two yet this fight was considered a robbery?

I thought it was a close fight, and could have gone either way really. I leaned towards Pacquiao in this one.

I think what happened is that people got caught up in the 'underdog effect'. Where the underdog does a lot better than he's supposed to and therefore gets more credit than he deserves. Because prior to the fight many picked Pacquiao to knock him out. When that didn't happen and when Marquez fought back, that changed peoples minds.

Chisora vs Helenius, is in my opinion one of the biggest robberies of all time. It wasn't as high profile of a fight as Pacquiao-Marquez, but it was a far bigger robbery. Chisora won at LEAST 8 rounds in that fight. At the very least, you can't make any case for Helenius winning the fight.